Mormons Caught in $188,000 Lie?

lds_salt_lake_family

Critics’ Jubilant Cries of “Scandal!” Backfire as Facts Come Out

Still grousing over their campaign losses, prop 8 critics gushed with glee as they rushed to color facts and pass sweeping judgments over campaign contribution filings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, posted this week:

Mormons Caught in $188,000 Lie!

“It took six weeks for the California’s Fair Political Practices Commission to uncover that the Mormon Church spent nearly $188,000 more on the Yes on Prop 8 campaign than it initially stated.

The church faces $5,000 fines for each omission. This discovery may help prove to church leaders that a separation between church and state serves both entities.”   (from JustOut blog)

Picked up, reshuffled and repeated, here it is again:  Mormon Church Admits It Spent 100 Times More Than Reported! –365 Gay.com

It’s really too bad because if a church that large had truly lied, it would have really made a good story.  Unfortunately, it’s no more exciting than all this paperwork piling on my desk for annual tax return filings.

Today The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints clarified erroneous news reports following the filing of its final report on donations to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition.

On Friday, 30 January, the Church filed the final report of its contributions (all of which were non-monetary) to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. The report, submitted in advance of the 31 January deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.

The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution.

Because media coverage about this filing ran without a comment from the Church, the following statements of fact from the Church add context to this story and should help correct the record:

Fox13 (Utah): “The documents show the amount spent by the Mormon Church is greater than what was initially stated.”

Fact: The Church, like other organizations on both sides of the ballot issue, was required to publicly file these donations by the 31 January deadline. The Church has been filing required contribution reports throughout the campaign. Those earlier donations “initially stated” were filed for specific time periods prior to this last reporting period, as required by law. Other groups are also filing their final contribution reports to meet the same deadline.

San Francisco Chronicle : “Mormon church officials, facing an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, Friday reported nearly $190,000 in previously unlisted assistance to the successful campaign for Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.”

Sacramento Bee : “The disclosure comes amid an investigation by the state’s campaign watchdog agency into whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints violated state laws by not fully disclosing its involvement during the campaign.”

Fact: This filing is in no way prompted by an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Many organizations are filing this week to meet the deadline required by law. We believe we have complied with California law.

KFMB 760 AM (San Diego) :

“Mormon Church Misstated How Much It Spent in Prop 8 Fight.”
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints previously claimed only about $2,000 was spent in support of the measure.”

365Ga y : “Mormon Church admits it spent 100 times more for Prop 8 than reported”

Fact: Again, the previous disclosure of an in-kind donation was to meet an earlier deadline. In fact, previous filings detailed over $50,000 out of the total non-monetary contribution of $189,903.58.This week’s filing reported donations that fell within a different time period and required reporting by the 31 January deadline. Other groups also made their final contributions reports this week.

Source: LDS Newsroom

Fortunately facts in the case help promote true understanding….if true understanding is what you are interested in.

No amount of mud throwing smear tactics will change what happened in California.  The voters were given an opportunity to vote their conscience, and they exercised it.  The fact that so many gay news outlets picked up the same facts and spun them the same way points to the widespread inner angst still circulating about prop 8’s passage.

The finger pointing is still going strong, but I have a hint for the plethora of  the perplexed.  It’s not some church pocket book that won California, you just can’t buy the kind of grass roots involvement we had for prop 8….it was the people.

California’s Secret Weapon–Plain Good People

The one thing pro-family groups have that can’t be beat are their armies of smiling, happy people who are honestly living their lives, and it shows.  In contrast with what we’ve seen the last few months parading through our streets, that’s where our brilliance is. It’s in our eyes and faces, more than our pocket books.

—Beetle Blogger

it's in their eyes.

see_it_in_their_eyesyoungandoldall_agescant_steal_what_we_have

Advertisements

23 Comments

  1. Pearl said,

    February 3, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Thanks Beetle! Thanks for reminding us that it’s not the money that won Prop 8. If so, the No on 8 should have won considering they raised more money in the end. It truly is the people who cherish good, old, family and marriage values and strive to protect their children against a selfish cultural movement.

  2. Pearl said,

    February 3, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Here is a discussion of tax-exemption “procedure” if anyone is interested:

    Should the LDS/Mormon Church Lose Its Tax-Exempt Status Over In-Kind Prop 8 Donations?

  3. s.m. said,

    February 3, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    Thanks for the pictures posted!
    Way to go!
    It just goes to show that the majority of Americans still believe that marriage is sacred!

  4. Raytmimer said,

    February 3, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    I’d heard some rumblings about this, but some of those quotes are pretty outrageous. I’m glad to see the facts coming out on this.

    “This discovery may help prove to church leaders that a separation between church and state serves both entities.

    When they think they’ve got the upper hand, they sure like to strut around tossing threats don’t they?

  5. beetlebabee said,

    February 3, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    Those pictures are from a wave I attended just before the election. As we were out there waving our signs, we had people from the grocery store parking lot walk up and ask if they could join us, kids and all.

    There were no on 8ers on the other side of the street in all their piercings and drag, they were angry and rude….one lady pulled over and handed a check out the window to us to donate to prop 8. She said she’d seen enough of the differences right there on the street.

  6. February 3, 2009 at 10:54 pm

    I’m so glad the Church came out with a statement. Now people have the facts. Thanks for the Prop 8 pics! I love them. It was so much fun uniting with other marriage defenders and working together. I loved the sign holding parties!!!

  7. Euripides said,

    February 3, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    These photos are great – a 180 degree difference from the angry, hate-filled pro-homosexual marriage groups.

  8. { Lisa } said,

    February 3, 2009 at 11:53 pm

    The “fruit” of the life style will show through on both sides.

  9. February 4, 2009 at 6:07 am

    Thanks for the photos BB. It give an insight into what it was like leading up to the vote. That old lady that pulled over sure worked it out quickly.

  10. beetlebabee said,

    February 4, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    Secular–I wish I had photos of the other side of the street, many of them were from our local high school…just oversexed, confused kids trying to fight a cause they didn’t understand all the way. The die-hard protesters feeding them information were seriously scary looking. Beyond the long hair druggie appearance, you know how you just get a certain feeling when you’re around some people? These guys had just this dark feeling.

    Perhaps it was just our area, but out of the 15-20 waves I participated in, I never saw a bright eyed, happy, self assured person among them.

    The megawave we had in our town right before election day stretched several city blocks. It was a pretty incredible thing. You can’t watch videos of these community waves and tell me those were all bought with some pocketbook.

  11. ditchu said,

    February 4, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    189,000.00 I think not.

    Look here: http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?appSession=32965595964906&RecordID=50634&PageID=3&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=6&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=

    and you will find that the LDS church did contribute, but only just under $3,000.00.

    Big differance.

    -D

  12. February 4, 2009 at 11:08 pm

    beetlebabee “Beyond the long hair druggie appearance, you know how you just get a certain feeling when you’re around some people? These guys had just this dark feeling.”
    Yeah, it’s odd how the people who were about to have a right taken away wouldn’t be smiling.

    They seemed much more bright eyed, happy, and self assured before, when this, this, and this were more typical.

    { Lisa } “The “fruit” of the life style will show through on both sides.”
    Obviously.

  13. { Lisa } said,

    February 4, 2009 at 11:20 pm

    Modusoperandi ,

    It’s not a right to twist marriage into something different. and I dont think that BB is talking about the looks on their faces, but about them being “dark” as in ugly inside.

  14. February 5, 2009 at 2:59 am

    …and I’m saying (though apparently I did it poorly) that there’s a perfectly valid reason for them being “dark inside”. First, their relationship didn’t have the protection of the State, then it did (when the guy in the last pic was “dark inside”), then people tried to take it away, then it got taken away. If, on step #3, you wouldn’t be a least a little “dark inside” in the their situation, you’re on either on Prozac, or didn’t care all that much about being the “winners” in step #2.

  15. { Lisa } said,

    February 5, 2009 at 5:24 am

    I think that unless you are “light” inside then you have no clue what “dark” means… I have been through hell in my lifetime yet I still have joy in me and a light that comes from me (as I am told often;) ) So just because things arent going thier way doesnt make them act that way, they act that way because it is the ‘spirit” of who they are and they lifestyle they choose.

  16. February 5, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    Uh huh. And when somebody else tries to stop your friends from getting hitched (and, in the process potentially annuling some 19,000 existing marriages), if your cheery disposition doesn’t get a bit tarnished, you didn’t care all that much in the first place, or you’re on Prozac.

  17. { Lisa } said,

    February 5, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    I’ve been through way worse and I am still smiling:) Oh and FYI marriage is between one man and one woman. and it’s not prozac that keeps my smiling it’s the holy spirit in me!!

  18. February 6, 2009 at 6:49 am

    beetleblogger:

    Secular–I wish I had photos of the other side of the street, many of them were from our local high school…just oversexed, confused kids trying to fight a cause they didn’t understand all the way.

    We had one townhall meeting at a local high school and all of the kids showed up with their faces painted and holding ridiculous signs that showed that they didn’t really understand what this was all about. When the meeting started they all filed in, about 100 of them, and the emcee promptly notified them that they had to be respectful during the meeting because the cops were right outside. So, they had to listen. When it was all over, their bitterness was mostly gone because they had heard the other side of the argument and now understood the issue more fully. There was a strong feeling of contention before the meeting began because the kids were screaming at the cars as they pulled in, but when it was over the kids all hung around and talked with the Yes on 8 supporters and it was quiet and peaceful.

  19. February 6, 2009 at 6:51 am

    I even heard one kid tell another, as they left, that he wanted to go hit someone because they felt like they had been lied to (from the No on 8 crowd).

    Not that violence is positive, but it showed a change of heart. Or at least understanding.

  20. Mel said,

    February 6, 2009 at 1:20 pm

    Wow, that’s awesome! I mean, not wanting to hit someone, of course….but awesome that the kids were able to see the truth!

  21. Chairm said,

    February 7, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    Modusoperandi said: “potentially annuling some 19,000 existing marriages”

    What do you mean?

    I ask because I don’t think the word, annul, means what you think it means.

    Other SSMers also say “forcibly divorcing” and I ask the same question.

  22. February 7, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    As long as annul still means “to nullify”, those who got married while possible are facing the possibility that their existing marriage won’t be recognized, now that new marriages aren’t possible.

  23. Chairm said,

    February 10, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    The amendment reaffirmed governmental recognition of marriage between husband and wife.

    That was the case before the state high court issued its diktat that contradicted the previously approved manwoman statutory provision.

    It was the case before the state high court refused to stay its decision before the upcoming vote on the amendment. Tthat same high court did not block the amendment from going on the ballot despite the pro-SSM request.

    So blame the high court for creating mischief.

    The status quo ante has been reasserted with the affirmation of the bothsexed basis of marriage law. In fact, since this is the second popular vote declaring the affirmation that already existed in the marriage law prior to 2000, we have had one reaffirmation after another.

    When people chose to rush to SSM, given the 5 months of mischief enabled by the high court, they were advised that the licenses might indeed be void after a Yes victory. They rushed anyway. Their problem.

    Also, even the proSSM side’s lawyers advised people who wanted to SSM to either manintain their domestic partnership status (the DP law was not up for repeal) or to register as doemstic partners before SSM’ng.

    The uncertainty was no secret. The LA Times incuded editorials discussing it in earnest. The No-on-8 side acknowledged the uncertainty.

    So, if it is your political priority, you can blame the Yes-on-8 voters for reaffirming what had already been reaffirmed in 2000 and had been on the books and affirmed in marriage law up to that date.

    But that would pretend that all the rest of the factors were invisible to your eyes and ears.

    The high court’s mischief making is the main problem. The SSMers who rushed did so with eyes wide open.

    And then, of course, the No-on-8 voters failed to convince enough openly gay voters and irreligious voters — who the proSSM side presume were natural No voters — to change the margin of defeat into the margin of victory. Exit polls suggest that gay voters contributed as much as one-half of the margin of defeat for the No side. Irreligious voters, almost the entire margin of defeat.

    The No side lost its massive lead — a lead so large the No on 8 side began the campaign as the suppoedly inevitable winners. So blame their campaign.

    Anyway, those who SSM’d can transition to DP.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: